Applicant v. Guarantee Company of North America (17-006956)

The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs and funding for catastrophic impairment assessments. The insurer argued that the limitation period barred the claim for NEBs, and that the claimed catastrophic impairment assessments were not reasonable and necessary. Adjudicator Flude agreed with the insurer. He held that the claim for NEBs was barred by the limitation period and that section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act did not warrant allowing the dispute to proceed. He also held that the catastrophic impairment assessments were not payable because there was no reasonable basis to conduct an assessment to determine if the claimant suffered such an impairment. Surveillance showed the claimant with normal functionality, and assessment of the claimant revealed no accident-related physical or psychological impairment.

Applicant v. Certas Direct Insurance Company (17-001627)

The claimant sought entitlement to 15 treatment plans, non-earner and attendant care benefits. The insurer paid the non-earner and attendant care benefits for two years, before stopping both with IE reports. The insurer, in its written submissions, reversed its position on medical benefits, and ultimately approved the disputed treatment plans. However, Adjudicator Susan Sapin determined the withholding of the treatment amounted to a special award and awarded five percent of the disputed quantum, plus special award interest. On review of the medical documentation, as well as an analysis of the claimant’s pre- and post-MVA lifestyle, along with finding favour in the claimant’s subjective reports, it was held that the claimant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life and was therefore entitled to ongoing NEBs. As it pertained to the claim for attendant care benefits, Adjudicator Sapin determined that the claimant was entitled to a reduced Form 1 quantum, as the claimant failed to demonstrate proof of incurred expense necessary to claim the full amount. Although the insurer sought to quash the claimant’s ongoing attendant care benefits as premature, Adjudicator Sapin held that the claimant needed to dispute the denial of attendant care within the 104 week period, or else forfeit the claim beyond the 104 week due to a possible limitations deadline. On review, it was determined the claimant was entitled to an increased quantum beyond the 104 week cut-off; however, the claimant would first need to apply for, and be designated, catastrophically impaired. Interest on all payable benefits was also awarded.

Applicant v. TD Insurance (17-003496)

The claimant sought entitlement to six assessments to address his potential catastrophic impairment. Each assessment was in excess of $2,000. The insurer denied the assessments on the basis that the claimant had failed to prove causation (i.e. the accident was minor, and the claimant suffered psychological difficulties before the accident). Adjudicator Sewrattan granted the claimant’s request for all six assessments, but limited the total payable to $2,000 per assessment, $200 for the form fee, and HST. The adjudicator did not decide whether section 25 automatically entitled the claimant to the assessments, but held that even on a “reasonable and necessary” standard, it was appropriate for the claimant’s psychiatric impairments to be tested and to determine whether they were accident related. He also noted that the insurer has a total of 13 IE assessments, while the claimant had no assessment funded, and that the insurer’s catastrophic IE assessors did not offer opinions on the psychiatric impairment as part of a WPI measurement.

Applicant v. The Sovereign General Insurance Company (16-004501)

The claimant sought entitlement to various denied catastrophic impairment assessments, and the cost of x-rays. The insurer had approved some of the catastrophic impairment assessments, but denied others. At the time of the hearing, the claimant had been declared catastrophically impaired. Adjudicator Sewrattan awarded the cost of the physiatry assessment, even though an orthopaedic assessment had been approved. He reasoned that it was an appropriate assessments as part of an overall determination. The adjudicator denied the cost of a File Review and a Whole Person Impairment Analysis, reasoning that both assessments were duplicative of services that had been approved (the file review as part of the $2,000 assessment fee, and the WPI analysis as part of an approved “Overall Assessment”). The cost of the x-ray was denied because it was reasonably available through OHIP.

S.B. v. State Farm Insurance (17-003290)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical benefits. On review, Adjudicator Christopher Ferguson determined that a number of treatment sought exceeded the monetary value claimed in the treatment plans, as well as in the Professional Service Guideline. Where the claims exceeded the PSGs, the treatment was not awarded. However, the remaining treatment plans, on review of the medical evidence were deemed reasonable and necessary.

Applicant v. State Farm Insurance Company (16-002858)

The claimant sought entitlement to three additional assessments related to a catastrophic impairment determination. The insurer denied them as being duplicative and unreasonable. Adjudicator Johal held that the in order to be payable, the proposed catastrophic impairment assessment had to be reasonable and necessary. Each proposed assessment was to be examined on that standard. Adjudicator Johal held that two of the proposed assessments were reasonable and necessary, but that no evidence was provided supporting the third assessment. The adjudicator also held that a maximum of $2,000 was to be paid for each proposed assessment. She denied a special award, stating that the insurer had based its denial on two paper review IEs and that it was not unreasonable for the insurer to do so.